ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI. vs. M/S. RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK, , JODHPUR

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

MURLIDHAR KRIPLANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Completing The Assessment Of Income Which Is Mandatory In Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani Vs. Ito Nature. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Also Confirmed That Where Return Of Income Filed Beyond Time As Contemplated Under Section 139, It Is Not Necessary On Part Of Ao To Issue Notice U/S 143(2) Which Is Bad In Law & Unjustified & Not Tenable As Per The Hon'Ble Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench In Case Of Ito Vs Kamla Devi Sharma In Db

147 of the Income Tax Act dated 25/03/2015 the assessment was completed under section 148/143(3) vide order dated 09/12/2015. LEGAL POINTS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE GROUND NO. 1 & 2 -VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS That the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the IT Act. Notice under section 148 was issued on 25/03/2015 requiring the assessee to file

RAJ KUMAR GOLECHA,PALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 along with a detailed questionnaire were issued on 11.07.2017, which was duly served upon the assessee. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 06.10.2017. In compliance to the notices issued, the authorized representative of the assessee attended and submitted some of the required details. The AO completed the assessment

ITO, JODHPUR vs. SMT. SITA L/H LTE SHRI JETHMAL BINAWARA, JODHPUR

142(1)/142(2) are quite procedural and ordinary. The proceedings under section 147/148 affect the rights of the assessee. The Bench went on to conclude that notice u/s 148, if not served to all the legal heirs of the deceased assessee, will be a defect which is not curable and, therefore, the reassessment will be null and void. Respectfully

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

section 250 dated 27.08.2018 and u/s 154 r.w.s. 250 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 24.01.2020 confirm the validity of issuance and service of notice and addition. 3. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT (A)-1, Udaipur, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us. 4. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee submitted his written submissions

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

section 250 dated 27.08.2018 and u/s 154 r.w.s. 250 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 24.01.2020 confirm the validity of issuance and service of notice and addition. 3. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT (A)-1, Udaipur, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us. 4. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee submitted his written submissions

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

section 250 dated 27.08.2018 and u/s 154 r.w.s. 250 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 24.01.2020 confirm the validity of issuance and service of notice and addition. 3. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT (A)-1, Udaipur, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us. 4. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee submitted his written submissions

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

section 250 dated 27.08.2018 and u/s 154 r.w.s. 250 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 24.01.2020 confirm the validity of issuance and service of notice and addition. 3. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT (A)-1, Udaipur, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us. 4. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee submitted his written submissions

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

section 250 dated 27.08.2018 and u/s 154 r.w.s. 250 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 24.01.2020 confirm the validity of issuance and service of notice and addition. 3. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT (A)-1, Udaipur, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us. 4. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee submitted his written submissions

MITHLESH SUHALKA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

147. Hence issue the notice u/s 148. (P855). "In response thereto the assessee has submitted filed his return declaring income at Rs.1,59,110/- on dt. 25.05.2010. The original reassessment under section 148 was framed on protective basis on 30/08/2011 u/s 148 on dt. 30.08.2011 (PB26-29). The substantive income derived from liquor business was assessed in the hand

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

142(1) of the Act. In response, the assessee filed reply dated 17.03.2022 through faceless proceedings. The reply of the assessee was considered but the AO could not find it acceptable. Thus, the AO proceeded to complete the assessment proceedings. The AO observed that since, the assessee has not shown LTCG or STCG

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

147, 148, 149, 151 and 153. However, they do not override the\nmandatory provisions of Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”.\n10\nITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024\nAshiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur.\nIn DCIT Sushil Kumar Jain 134 TTJ 844 (Indore)that “Time-limit of service of notice\nunder s. 143(2) shall also apply in respect of assessments framed

LAXMAN SINGH SOLANKI (FIRM),PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

u/s 194C). As there was no response to various statutory notices, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte under section 147 r.w.s. 144/144B on 27.03.2022 determining income at Rs.1,03,78,887/- by disallowing the said expenses. 4. Against the order of the Ld. AO The appeal before the CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 129 days